#121- Persona

Quick recap: Netflix told me that this was a story about a nurse who cares for an actress who is unable to speak anymore. The two move to a summer cottage so that the actress can recuperate and in the process, the two women form a bond. Nice try, Netflix, but you aren’t tricking me that easily.

Netflix also neglected to tell me about the giant spider I would have to encounter in the opening.

Fun (?) fact: The opening sequence features among other things, a cartoon shown upside down, A GIANT SPIDER, a lamb being slaughtered and Jesus crucified. It was all very weird and unsettling to me,but it turns out all the images reference other Ingmar Bergman films.

My thoughts: This is my second Bergman film, which pushes me ever closer to the line of pretentiousness. Not too close however, because I can’t understand a damn thing from either movie without spending a couple of hours researching what the hell I just watched. It makes me feel like I’m back in high school, looking up the meaning of almost every line in a Shakespeare play on Sparknotes and being so proud of myself for finally getting it. And then a minute later regret overcomes me and the whole piece of work has been cheapened just a little.

Just like Winter Light, I loved how stylized and simple everything is. The film was shot in black in white and the characters also wear dark and light clothing. Watching the two converse (the actress couldn’t talk so it was just the nurse talking) was like watching a play where the focus is on nothing else but the characters. In some ways it made the film easier to identify with but in other ways, it just made everything seem significant. Why was Elisabet perched on that rock? What does that rock stand for? Alma cuts her left wrist, not her right. What could it mean???

The idea of Persona is an interesting one. It certainly drew me in more than Winter Light did. In the beginning of the film Alma is seen as the stronger of the two since Elisabet is unable to speak or do much. As the two become closer at the summer cottage, Alma starts to divulge some dark secrets, including an abortion she had after sex with a couple of underage boys. It’s at this point that Elisabet becomes the sane one. After a night of drinking, Alma observes how much alike she and Elisabet are, which references the title of the film and the idea that we see ourselves in others, but not always in the best way. The most mind blowing scene is when Alma confronts Elisabet about her past and a son that was born after failed abortion attempts. Elisabet’s face becomes more and more pained as Alma continues and then in one shot, it appears as if the women’s faces have merged together.The story could easily be Alma’s. The realization horrifies her as she can truly see who she is and so Alma is finally able to escape.

Final review: 4/5. I can see myself watching this again, this time paying more attention to detail.

Up next: The Burmese Harp

#119- Out of Africa

Quick recap: A somewhat biographical story of the Baroness Karen Blixen, who goes to Africa and then later gets ‘out of Africa’. And also falls in love with Robert Redford, because didn’t we all at some point?

Robert Redford can make hair washing look hot

Fun (?) fact: In one scene, Meryl Streep (Blixen) had to fire at a lion. She was promised the lion would be restrained but he was not, so her fear is real. It’s kind of like when I think one of my cats is asleep next to me, only to find out they aren’t and I have left my feet uncovered. It never ends well.

But the lions hung out on Denys’ grave at the end of the movie so all was forgiven

My thoughts: For a lady who ran a plantation all by herself in Africa while surrounded by lions and war, Karen Blixon’s life onscreen is rather dull. If I had to attribute it to one thing, I think the reason the movie didn’t really resonate with me is that it is framed as an ‘epic romance’. I’m not saying that because I don’t really like romance movies, but because the story is about a woman’s life in Africa.I felt that there were many scenes that could’ve been grittier and shown more emotion. There were so many opportunities to show how fierce and strong she was, but instead we see that she struggles until Denys (Robert Redford) strolls up and saves the day and in the end, all that’s really been injured is Blixon’s hair. She also had Syphilis during the movie but I don’t think many people would consider that a fun adventure.

I could go into the offensive colonial mindset that was present throughout the film, but considering that’s how Blixon presented her world in her writing, I suppose Out of Africa was accurate in that regard. I also liked Denys’ opposing viewpoint that the indigenous tribes were fully formed people who didn’t really need to be civilized. Blixon fought for workers to have their own land and not be split up so I’m glad she realized what was best.

I suppose I am contradicting myself a little bit, but what I loved most about Out of Africa was the gorgeous scenery when Denys and Blixon went on adventures and faced danger. It was beautiful and almost made me want to see the landscape up close. Almost. So while I didn’t find the action all that exciting, the scenery made up for it.

the real Karen and Denys

Final review: 2/5. Almost a 3, especially considering how much I loved Streep’s performance but in the end a 2 because it was so LONG.

Up next: Murder, My Sweet

1 Comment

#117- Nashville

Quick recap:This is a satirical film about……Nashville. There are a billion different characters and story lines which I’m not even going to attempt to go into.

even Jeff Goldblum is in the movie

Fun (?) fact: Almost all the dialogue throughout the movie is improvised. Also, all actors singing were required to write and perform their own original songs.

even Elliott Gould appeared briefly in Nashville

My thoughts: I’m not sure where to begin on this review because frankly, I’m not entirely sure what I just watched. IMDb says this movie is in the drama genre but there is satire so I should’ve laughed, right? Or at least shook my head and quietly mumbled, ‘good job, Altman. You get it.’? I think my issue with the ‘satire’ label is that I have no concept of what life was like then. Director Robert Altman tried to capture what America was going through in 1975- the end of Vietnam War as well as the Watergate scandal, and then the bicentennial celebration in 76 which was supposed to honor the morals that the US was founded on. So, in the sense that I am an adult with critical thinking skills I get the point but I don’t really get it because I wasn’t alive then. In this instance, the movie’s core was lost on me but for someone older I could imagine it really having an impact and bringing back memories of that time.

So what I’m left with is a story about Nashville. Kind of. As mentioned above, there are so many story lines and characters that it mostly seems chaotic. The characters interact with each other and show up at various events together but they aren’t best friends or anything. I spent the first 2 hours trying to find a connection and then waiting for a big moment but it didn’t come until the very end. The ending is a twist and sort of ties everything together but not really. As an example, one of the characters is a soldier who keeps popping up around another character, Barbara Jean. He is shown in all scenes with her, even as just a face in the crowd in some instances. It is later revealed that his mom once saved Barbara Jean from a fire and wanted her son to find her. That’s it. That was the climax for that story line.

Other story lines- in fact, almost all of the story lines- are bleak and sad. There’s Sueeleen who can’t sing but since she’s hot she gets booked into a big gig. Once the people hear her they start to boo. She is then talked into a strip tease because that’s what the audience really came for. Another sad character is Mr. Green, whose wife is in the hospital. He spends the movie trying to hunt down his niece who would rather visit with boys than her sick aunt, who later dies. It seemed as if Altman was making fun of the country music scene but even his most famous character Haven Hamilton is pretty much what I would expect a country star to act like. I think I just didn’t get this movie or its importance. Moving on.

Final review: 2/5. It also annoys me that so many stars were in this movie. No reason why, but I think it added to the overall chaos

Up next: Muriel’s Wedding

2 Comments

#116- Red River

Quick recap: It’s Mutiny on the Bounty but with cowboys.

and there’s a wise cook who shares his teeth with a Native American. That’s not an expression, by the way. He literally shares his dentures with another person.

Fun (?) fact: John Ireland, who played Cherry Valance, originally had a much bigger part in the movie but due to unprofessionalism barely had any scenes in the final cut.

comparing the size of their ‘guns’

My thoughts: Despite having hated Shane, I vowed to not let it taint the western movie genre for me. Red River is already a step in the right direction for two reasons: 1) it has John Wayne, whom I have never seen act before (I KNOW) and 2) there are no creepy ‘Village of the Damned’ children. Score!

Before I start, let me first explain that I was going to make this post all about the flirting going on between Montgomery Clift’s character (Matt) and John Ireland’s character (Cherry Valance). Imagine many witty Gay Cowboy jokes, maybe with a few cleverly placed Brokeback Mountain references for good measure. But in researching Red River, I learned that Clift was most definitely gay in real life and the director (as well as everyone else) was well aware of it. That joke about comparing gun sizes? Totally intentional. And now I’m embarrassed for neglecting my 1940’s gossip magazines, or I would’ve already known this fact. 70 year old scandal is the best kind of scandal, you know.

Red River, for the most part, exceeded my expectations. On the surface, it was a fun western with all the tropes you would expect to see: damsel in distress, negative portrayal of native americans, cowboys being macho and ‘manly’. But I liked how John Wayne’s character brought in some deeper themes. I don’t know much about John Wayne (I KNOW), but I always thought he played the ‘good guy’. Actually, I still don’t really know if he is considered the ‘good guy’ in this movie because he has a fondness for killing people. Like, he just does it without thinking. I laughed out loud in the beginning of the film when there is a time jump to show how much Thomas Dunsan’s (John Wayne) ranch has grown and you can see a whole graveyard of people he has apparently killed and buried over the years. He’s just so nonchalant about it which seems kind of evil, but he always buries the victims and reads out of a Bible so in the eyes of other cowboys, he isn’t so bad.

I also appreciated that the movie didn’t just put the cowboys in situation after situation, even though the cattle drive was perilous. There were dangers, sure, but most of the conflict came between the men themselves. But there was also an ‘indian raid’ and stampede (caused by a cowboy stealing sugar) so the action was plenty intense.

a parting shot of Montgomery Clift and that other guy

Final review: 4/5. Close to a 5 but I have hope that there are even better westerns out there for me to see

Up next: Nashville

1001 Movie Nights

Tag Archives: drama

#121- Persona

#119- Out of Africa

#117- Nashville

#116- Red River

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: